Chilly Morning Round Up

A few topics to chew on as you drink your coffee or tea, or hot cocoa and try to warm up . . .

GOOD THING THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS CANCELLED
Maybe the Worker's Compensation Fund might not get so much money. They had slated it to get extra money from the general fund so that we spent up to our Expenditure Restraint Program (ERP) limit. But with this snowstorm that is supposed to break the bank, they'll like have to adjust that. Won't impact our general fund quite the way this article says, since they were going to put that money into the fund (optional), instead, it will go towards plowing. At least that is what should happen. Of course, the Governor did declare a state of emergency, so perhaps the state will come through for us?

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO WEIGH IN ON EDGEWATER
Gee, I wonder what they will say . . . I'm on the edge of my seat!

The Economic Development Committee hold a special meeting at 5:00 pm on Monday, December 14, in Room 260 of the Madison Municipal Building, 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Please use the Doty Street entrance to get into the building.

This meeting is a rescheduling of the December 8 meeting which was cancelled due to bad weather, and has the same agenda. The agenda may be found at: http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/meetings/2009/12/8792_A_ECONOMIC_DEVELOPMENT_COMMITTEE_09-12-14_Agenda.pdf

METRO SPINS
Sound like many bus riders spent extra hours on the bus yesterday. Tales of two hour bus rides seemed common among my facebook friends. Lots of kudos for the drivers for handling the snowy conditions and not many complaints as the buses were stuck in the same traffic with everyone else. What did make me laugh was this:

Morning Madison Metro Announcement

Due to icy road conditions, Metro buses are running approximately 10-15 minutes schedule.

Drivers are maintaining schedules as conditions allow. Delays may increase through the rush hour.

Please plan extra time in your commute.

Evening Madison Metro Announcement

Thursday, December 10: 4:09 PM.

Due to icy roads, many buses are running 10-30 minutes behind schedule. Drivers maintain schedules as conditions allow.

Please plan extra time for your commute.

Optimistic group of folks they are! Sounds like they should have added an hour to that notice.

CITY WANTS TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK

Sustainable Madison Information and Survey Available on the Web.

You can now view information regarding what Madison has done regarding sustainability and green initiatives from other cities.
You can also fill out an on-line survey and help the City priorities sustainability goals and initiatives.

http://www.cityofmadison.com/Sustainability/community/

BRUSH WILL BE COLLECTED
Sounds like the storm did quite a bit of damage to the trees . . .

Winter Storm – downed trees, branches and brush collection

Due to the heavy, wet snow Madison has many downed trees and branches. The city of Madison is asking citizens to do the following:

Street Tree – if a street tree or branch, by definition a tree planted in between the street and sidewalk, is blocking a street or sidewalk or if there is a hanging branch, please call 266-4816 to report the damage. City Forestry crews are currently responding to over 200 calls for service on damaged trees.

Private Tree – if your private tree was damaged, you may need to call a private contractor to address the damage.

Brush collection – please place the brush for collection on your property’s terrace just as you would normally. City crews will collect the brush after they have completed the clean up from Tuesday’s storm. The brush may not be collected immediately and we ask for everyone’s patience as city crews continue to work on the clean up.

You may also bring the brush to the Streets Yard Waste Sites. They are open Monday – Friday, 7:30a.m. – 3p.m.
East: 4602 Sycamore Ave. West: 1501 W. Badger Rd.
For more information on winter in Madison Parks, visit www.cityofmadison.com/winter

WOW, THAT WASN'T FAIR
The Tenney Lapham Neighborhood and others have been talking about a two-way Johnson and Gorham for years, its been in city approved plans for years. There are even plans for where the stop lights would go and that have identified costs and issues to be resolved. We just decided to get the Downtown Plan done first. When talking about this, the neighborhood was looking at slowing down traffic, returning the neighborhood to a more family friendly place with hopes of getting more owner-occupants downtown, quality of life issues like noise and actually being able to open your street facing windows in the summer and still hear the tv, making it easier to cross the streets and much, much, more. But how does the new alder frame the issue?

Ald. Bridget Maniaci, who lives on Johnson Street, has mixed feelings about the idea. "There are a lot of good reasons to do it, but we don't have a lot of data," she says. "We have to [show] why this is good for the city, not just that property values will go up."

What?! In all the discussions, pro and con, this hasn't been the issue. Every time she insults her constituents, I feel a greater sense of responsibility for letting my neighbors down. I think they deserve an alder that supports their positions, not insults and dismisses them.

STRANGER STILL
This is the email sent to the neighborhood listserve last week, in the middle of the Edgewater controversy:

On a non-Edgewater related topic...

A number of folks in the neighborhood have been interested in the long-term prospects of turning Johnson and Gorham Street back to two-way streets. Our council staffer, Lisa Veldran sent the following article to council members, and I thought it'd be worth it to send it on to you all and weigh in on. It's not that I've been totally skeptical, but such a prospect would require a lot of planning for our neighborhoods and a lot of city resources (millions of dollars) that requires broad city-wide buy-in. If our neighborhood wants this to happen, we need to embrace the full realization of what needs to happen and the full planning and impacts of the proposal. So let's try to be real and check the pie-in-the-sky philosophies at the door on this one moving forward and get working on the hard issues.

Some thoughts on how it could happen (maybe):

1) the major stumbling block to this idea is the intersection of Baldwin and Johnson/Gorham. One idea I've visualized is to put in a large roundabout to get access to both Johnson and Gorham Street. That roundabout would likely require the removal of the CDA assisted living facility on the peninsula between Johnson and Gorham to be consolidated with a new (larger, denser) replacement housing facility where the Baldwin Street facility and parking lot currently stands.

Pro: that housing could probably use to be upgraded & use more efficient use of the Baldwin lot.
Question: what happens to the residents of that housing while construction is underway?
Question: How much money would be required for new CDA housing & for the intersection reconstruction. My stabs in the dark: $3-4 million for the intersection, $7-10 million for the new housing (variable depending on underground parking).
Con: Streets city staff is totally opposed to this idea. Many alders are leery of this idea because of the impacts to their constituents' commutes and questions of manuverability (think Badger football weekends). Substantial studies need to be done to determine traffic flow patterns under this scenario. We need to hear what CDA's plans for their facilities are.

Question: who's going to pay/do those traffic studies? What reasons outside of our own parochial interests are there to convince Alders and city-staff that this is in the best interest of the city?

2) We usually talk about the farther end of the neighborhood, but what about the impact to the near isthmus neighborhoods?
Concerns I have: Blair Street is a small, residential sized road. We don't have our infrastructure built to handle the transfer of massive amounts of Johnson Street traffic to E Wash via Blair Street. -Blair St. reconstruction needs to get into the 5-year city budget & stop getting pushed back as it is because the road is falling apart.

Also, I'm very concerned with turning N Blair Street, which is residential, into a car-laden thoroughfare more than it already is (even if we physically had the street in a condition to handle the traffic). There is a great divide on S Blair between neighborhoods stemming from it's highway-like nature. N Blair has a very different character and I don't want to see a divide and disconnect develop when it's a continuous neighborhood from one block to the next. How do we mitigate that? -Could N Blair Street also turn 2 way? Would that do anything?

3) What is the cost to our neighborhood in real metrics under the current situation? What are our goals for change and can we make the case for millions of dollars such a plan would require for our neighborhood? How is our residential character & local businesses different/ more deserving of attention than other major thoroughfares throughout the city (Whitney Way, Midvale, Mineral Point Road, Bassett/Broom, Willy St.)

Some of these points are easier than others to work through, though none are simple. The Baldwin intersection/CDA tie-in is a 10 year plan idea. Other questions: Are any federal road funds available? This part of Johnson isn't a highway (like E Wash is). Are parking issues at all intertwined in this? What sorts of parking improvements could be made? Would we lose street parking by going 2-way? If so, how much?

The last sentence in the article hits the quandary on the head:
"I wouldn’t argue that two-way streets are any sort of panacea for urban revival, Vancouver’s experience notwithstanding. And I understand that they are not always practical. Some streets simply are too narrow to have traffic moving in both directions; others have to be designated one-way because their purpose is to feed traffic onto expressways. What I would say is this: When it comes to designing or retrofitting streets, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on those who want to use them the old-fashioned way. It should be on those who think the speedway ideology of the 1950s serves much of a purpose half a century later."

Let's see if there's a way to work forward on this idea, but I ask you to acknowledge the amount of work and time ahead and realize that our neighborhood won't get everything we want out of this process. We have to be cost-conscious, realistic and pragmatic if we want this to go from a nice idea to a functioning, improved reality, if indeed this concept operates in the best interest of our neighborhood.

Like I said, Traffic Engineering has done the studying, and it will cost a little over $600,000 in 2008 dollars. There's so much else in there to respond to, I don't know where to begin.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Immigration, that is:

Washington D.C. - The Immigration Policy Center has compiled research which shows that immigrants, Latinos, and Asians are an important part of Wisconsin's economy, labor force, and tax base. Immigrants and their children are a growing economic and political force as workers, consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs. With the state working towards recovery, immigrants and their children will continue to play a key role in shaping the economic and political future of the Badger State.

Highlights from Wisconsin include:

* Wisconsin was home to 252,150 immigrants in 2007.
* 41.2% of immigrants in 2007 (or 103,291 people) in Wisconsin were naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.
* Latinos accounted for 4.8% (or 268,879) and Asians 1.9% (or 106,431) of Wisconsinites in 2007.
* The 2008 purchasing power of Latinos totaled $5.3 billion and Asian buying power totaled $3.0 billion in Wisconsin in 2007.
* If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Wisconsin, the state would lose $2.6 billion in expenditures, $1.2 billion in economic output, and approximately 14,579 jobs.

There is no denying the contributions immigrants, Latinos, and Asians make and the important role they will play in Wisconsin's political and economic future. For more data on their contributions to the Badger State, view the IPC fact sheet in its entirety.

* New Americans in the Badger State (Wisconsin)

DIDN'T EVEN TRY
Our house was fully shoveled by 10:30 or so, but still, no mail. Here they explain why the creed is dead. Not a bad excuse, probably a good decision. Just sayin', the times they are a changin'.

SPEAKING OF CHANGES
You may have noticed I've been playing around with the look of my blog and what extra tools are available on it. And I'm allowing anonymous comments. It's all a big experiment, so let me know what you like, and what you don't. Looks like I may have added too much, as its loading a little slowly. It's work in progress, feedback welcome. Read more!

Board of Estimates (Preview of Issues to Come) Recap

Mark Clear violates ethics ordinance?, TIF falling out of favor with Madison School District and County (could future TIF districts and expansions . . . ahem, Edgewater . . . be in jeopardy?), the city budget shortfall (are newspapers partially responsible?) and towing . . . Thuy failed to show on Meadowood if folks are wondering, but Clear didn't fail to disappoint in geeking out, while grinning ear to ear, over software.

This isn't a typical line by line recap, just a few items of note.

CLEAR VIOLATED ETHICS CODE?
So, the ethics code, which there has been alot of buzz about recently clearly says the following:

An elected official who has or whose immediate family member has a financial or personal interest in any matter coming before the Common Council shall disclose on the records of the Common Council the nature and extent of such interest. This provision shall not apply if the elected official disqualifies herself or himself from participating in discussion of the matter and from voting on it. An elected official shall disqualify herself or himself from discussing and voting if the matter under consideration involves her or his or her or his immediate family member’s financial or personal interests to the extent that such interests conflict or appear to conflict with her or his official duties or would impair or reasonably be expected to impair her or his independence of judgment or actions.

While discussing the small business bus pass program at the Board of Estimates, Clear had this to say:

As a quick comment, as one of those companies that is ready to sign, I am very excited about this, and I think its a great program and I'm looking forward to being on of the first to participate.

That didn't sound like a disclosure, and it didn't sound like an abstention. I sounded like someone who has a financial (tax savings!) or personal interest in the passage of this resolution who violated the ethics code.

FED UP WITH TIF?
In discussing the "half mile rule" issue with the Board of Estimates, there were a few interesting tid-bits that were disclosed. Verveer had a substitute that was a "compromise" as a result of some of the concerns.

Gromacki explained that the Joint TIF Review Board had concerns about the project plan that was presented, they got alot of feedback that wasn't positive and he thinks if they had put it to a vote it would have failed. They were concerned that they were committed to paying $2M during a time when there is alot of concern about where funding is going to come from for school districts and underlying jurisdictions. The district is doing well and there is $5.7 million dollars of excess increment without identified costs in the district. That gave them pause and there was alot of pushback for the first time since Gromacki has been here. He said they came up with a compromise, which the joint review board still has to vote on that, that they would eliminate the $5.7M expenditure since it has unidentified costs. They think the $2M of budgeted costs for the capital square area that would be ok.

Bruer asked if, given the growing sensitivity of the other jurisdictions (County, School District and MATC) that have to approve our TIF districts, what the staff saw coming with other TIF district requests (everyone had to be thinking Edgewater, they still need to get the Edgewater in a TIF district before it can get TIF money and that has to pass this board.)

Gromacki says there is growing concern, School District is particularly cash strapped and they are looking at TIF districts that are doing well and wanting to recover cost, they want their foregone revenue back. They aren't really questioning our use of TIF, but they are in a situation where every dollar counts. They county surprised him because they got in the fray. Their concern was primarily with the $5.7M and even the MATC representative was concerned.

Bruer was really pushing for the city and Mayor to follow up to smooth things over to smooth the way for any future TIF requests.

Clear asked what happens from the $5.7? They said that it would be deleted and then it would force an early closing of the district.

Sanborn took the opportunity to explain how the schools and county and technical college fore go increases in taxes in those areas and re-made his argument that we should just borrow for items we think are appropriate. He, of course, was the sole no vote.

GEEKING OUT
So, I sort of was giving Clear grief for being a geek about software, but as they were discussing the upgrades, Dean Brasser mentioned that part of the project means the there will be web based tools to help access data in the financial database to limit the inquiries they get. I can't wait to hear/see more on that! There, now my geek is showing.

BUDGET . . . SHORTFALLS?
Brasser explained the resolution. He says its just a technical change, it presents information about budget amendments necessary throughout the year, they are pretty minor. There were a few departments who went over costs, Rhodes-Conway made sure they were called up to explain themselves. Brasser says streets was the biggest issue, but it was due to recycling costs being down by $1.22M. (See next item). He also then explained that the city, when they can, under the limits of the Expenditure Restraint program, we like to put funds towards the Workman's Comp Fund. We've had a deficit in that fund for years and when we can, "if we have available resources" we try to transfer money to the fund to help make up the deficit. This year we have 2.77M under the Expenditure Restraint program and after all the adjustments they have $1.625M that the CAN transfer if they CHOOSE.

NEWSPAPERS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR CASH FLOW PROBLEMS?
This caught my ear . . . in response to Verveer, Al Schumacher was describing the recycling revenues being down, he said that newspaper and cardboard has been the main staple of the recycling program and it is down. He said "the downturn in daily newspapers has really caused a big hit and the foreign economies don't want our newsprint because they don't have a market for it." There you go! Blame the media . . . or is that the damn internets?

TOWING
They spent a good hour and a half on this issue. In a nutshell, disputes about zoning, who is the cheapest, who provides the best service and the bidding process were at issue. Prairie Land Towing went through a process, ended up the cheapest and had the best score (95 vs. 76 score) and got a letter saying they were awarded the contract, then there was a protest letter from Schmitz towing, then Prairie Land was told on the phone the contract was a problem because of zoning issues. When Prairie Land looked into their zoning, they found Schmidt's Towing was also in violation. Then the police weighed in saying they preferred the more expensive Schmidts. So the Mayor, Bruer and Clear proposed to overturn the process and scores and go with Schmidt's instead. Lots of talking . . . I skipped through a bunch of it (Bruer). . . in the end Sanborn suggested they go with 6 months and settled on a 9 month process. Bruer and Clausius argued they should stick with 18 months. I found Sanborn's arguments, once again, very responsible and convincing. Something kind of stinks here and it looks bad.
Read more!

A little more Round Up

There's a little bit out there to comment on . . .

EDGEWATER TOUR
I considered going, but didn't feel like listening to another sales pitch. Apparently Rummel concludes, yes, the huge building will change the views for neighbors (duh, but somebody had to say it) and Maniaci presents a false choice "Alder Bridget Maniaci, a member of the commission, said the group first has to figure out if ordinance language related to neighborhood's historic district is meant to "stop destruction of historic properties" or "stop new development in historic districts." I sat on the commission, I don't think the commission needs to figure that out, generally speaking, it is clear that development is allowed, and we even said many times it shouldn't look faux historic, but should reflect the time in which it is built. I think the ordinance is clear that new development is allowed, the question is, is it compatible? Here's the language about "New Development" in the Historic District:

(e) Guideline Criteria for new Development in the Mansion Hill Historic District.
1. The gross volume of any new structure shall be visually compatible with the
buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related
area).
2. In the street elevation(s) of a new building, the proportion between the width and the height in the facade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings and the environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
3. The proportions and relationships between width and height of the doors and
windows in new street facade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings
and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
4. The rhythm of solids to voids created by openings in the facade of the new
structure should be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with
which it is visually related (visually related area).
5. All new street facades should blend with other buildings via directional
expression. When adjacent buildings have a dominant vertical or horizontal
expression, this expression should be carried over and reflected.

There's other areas of the ordinance that come into play and the commissions job will be to try to balance it all and decide if it should get a certificate of appropriateness and consider:

c. Whether, in the case of any property located in an Historic District
designated pursuant to the terms of Subsection (6)(d) hereunder, the
proposed construction, reconstruction or exterior alteration does not
conform to the objectives and design criteria of the historic preservation
plan for said district as duly adopted by the Common Council.

So, the question becomes, should they get a certificate of appropriateness and does it conform with its plan. My guess is, they won't make a final decision on Monday, but you never know.

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING
Hmmm . . . Badger Depot closing causes confusion . . . no kidding, who didn't see that coming.

"CABLE COMPETITION" BILL NOT DELIVERING
Again, who didn't see this coming. Rates are up, union jobs are down, and its the beginning of the end of public cable access as we know it. In the Milwaukee area alone the they've lost 300 union jobs, or 15% of the jobs.

THE SAD STATE OF THE MEDIA
Sometimes, a picture is worth a 1,000 words. This used to be functioning media room at city hall . . . and now . . . its where they store the chairs.

Better yet, or I guess, worse . . .  the other day when I cut through there, one of the computers had a "blue screen of death" on it.

BANDS, PROMOTERS, SOUND GUYS (OR GALS IF THEY EXIST?), ETC, NO DRINKS FOR YOU!
I have the week off, so I was reading the . . .gasp . . . thedailypage forum. Generally, to be avoided as it just devolves into a nasty round of insults, but this discussion is of interest . . . as they note, while its hard to argue that bartenders should be able drink on the job, they bring up some good questions about brewmasters and others. Was the ordinance intended to be that broad? Here's the ordinance proposal in question proposed by Schumacher and the Mayor:

(8) It shall be unlawful for the licensee, agents, officers, directors, partners, members, managers of the licensee, or any employee or independent contractor of a licensed establishment, including members of the licensee’s immediate family, to drink or consume any alcohol beverage or to be under the influence of an intoxicant, or a controlled substance or a combination of an intoxicant and a controlled substance, while working or performing services on the licensed premises.

BURY THE BAD NEWS
Instead of discussing this during the budget, they release it during a slow news week/when no one is paying attention, but the city is facing a deficit for the first time in 20 years. Not by much given we have a $239M operating budget, but $3.4M still hurts when taking it out of our reserve. It's also interesting that when looking at the city budget, you can find 16 fund balances, but not the amount that is in the reserve listed anywhere.

Eh, that's all I got for today . . . Happy Thanksgiving. Read more!

Board of Estimates Re-cap

A bit of a preview of issues to come, some revealing of some issues that won't ever get talked about at the council . . . .

Mayor, Bruer, Verveer, Rhodes-Conway, Clear, Clausius present, Sanborn absent.

I'm using my "week ahead" titles as a base for this post so I don't need to re-look up the links. The agenda is here for the rest of the links.

PUBLIC COMMENT
One person, Steve Schooler from Porchlight on 7 & 8, they decide to wait until that item comes up.

PERSONNEL ISSUES
- More advancements for some staff in some departments. See items 1 - 4. [this process seems so totally random]
#1 - Clerical Position in IT Department - Alder Rhodes-Conway asks why this is the second reclassification of this position in 2 years (i.e. 2nd raise in two years). Staff starts to justify, Rhodes-Conway explains the question is more systemic. Asks how often positions are reclassified, staff explains its whenever the supervisor brings it up or the position is vacant. Rhodes-Conway asks if there is a less haphazard way to do this and about training. Staff says that they have training as part of the supervisor's orientation and that with 2700 positions this is the only way to do this. [This is just crap. Some supervisors have been with the city for what seems like forever and there is no on-going training. So, some of them have probably never gotten any formal training and as a result, some departments get lots of reclasses, some get none. And I'm not sure that it's only because of the supervisor and if they bring the issues up. There needs to be a better way to evaluate some of these positions! Just my two cents after having served for nearly a year on a committee that was looking at the personnel issues.]

#2 - GIS Specialist in Planning - Rhodes-Conway notes that there are multiple GIS Speciailists in many departments and asks how they work together. Apparently, according to staff, "they talk". Staff explains that they could look at having one title across departments but that would take a study and they could do it. [But I didn't get the impression that they would.] Rhodes-Conway suggests to Mayor and Department Heads that they try to look for synergies.

#3 & 4 - Combining the Warner Parks Facility Manager with the Pool Manager. Rhodes-Conway asks why? HR Staff say that Warner Park is busy in winter, pool is busy in summer. Kevin Briske from Parks was asked to join conversation - he reiterates and says the staff in the position did double duty last summer and it worked. Rhodes-Conway asked how they determined that winter was busy season at Warner. He says numbers of people using facility - more basketball leagues? That the Warner Park staff is experienced and can handle it and have extra staff in the summer due to MSCR. They keep talking about "levels of efficiency" as if those are the magic words people want to hear.

Rhodes-Conway says that this is the wrong direction to head for the Pool Manager only to work during the summer. Says the Warner Park Director needs to be more focused on Warner Park and that this will hurt the functioning of the Center. She is voting no.

Clear asks about the pool operations. Again "level of efficiencies" buzzwords tossed around. Staff says 2 of 4 Aquatic Supervisors returning from last year, that Brad (Weisinger, the Warner Park Facilities Manager) has experience and training from last year.

Mayor jumps in, defends his guy, says Kevin is good at finds "efficiencies". Says the Council took the position that the Pool had to break even and this is one way to do it. And that they will try this and "figure out how it works" this year.

Kevin jumps back in and says that there are additional full time staff that will support the pool facilities manager.

Verveer asks the Mayor how the current budget picture works with the reclassifications - does the Mayor just approve them all?

Mayor says that he just approves them all. Says this has nothing to do with the hiring freezes, that HR staff does their job and if the person deserves the raise based on the merits, then its only fair since they are doing the work. [Right, so the people suffering by doing two and three jobs while the positions are frozen - it wouldn't be "fair" to give them additional compensation???? Better rethink that answer Mayor.]

1 & 2 pass unanimously.
3 & 4 Rhodes-Conway votes no.

- Al Schumacher, Streets Superintendent gets rewarded with additional duties and additional pay - twice as much as Larry Nelson got paid to do the same job.
#5 - Giving Al Schumacher additional position that Larry Nelson used to have as the Public Works coordinator. Mayor asks if they want to "grill" Schumacher, "in fact encourages it." [Supposed to be a joke.]

Clear asks why Al, is he the senior manager? Al Schumacher says Vandenbrook is more senior of the managers, but that he has been with the City the longers (32 years). Says he's not sure why he was chosen.

Mayor says it was a hard choice, lots of good managers, thinks Schumacher did a good job with streets with the last two years with the snow. Says he's the best choice among the good choices. Someone [Rhodes-Conway or Clear] asked about the extra money. Mayor explains that Larry Nelson got paid more because he was at the top of the scale and that Schumacher gets paid less as a base and so he's getting more money for these additional duties.

Rhodes-Conway says that seems odd to base it on the base pay of the employee, not the job duties involved.

Mayor says Larry Nelson was under-compensated when he did the work. Says the base salary issue just bolsters his argument. Then lots of jokes start . . . blah, blah, blah, Vince Lombardi, football jokes, broken leg, hurry up approve before he changes his mind, blah, blah, blah.

Approved unanimously

- Reappointing Brad Murphy as Director of the Planning Unit.
#5 Passes unanimously with I think some side comments about how great of a job Brad does, but it was hard to hear.

PORCHLIGHT PROPERTIES
- Funding for Porchlight to purchase a house on the 300 block E Mifflin (right across the street from my house) and 500 block E Johnson St. (Funny, not a peep from our neighborhood, unlike Alder Kerr's neighborhood.)

Rhodes-Conway asks for a brief explanation.

Steve Schooler from Porchlight explains that they owned a building on Henry St. for about 20 years, developer wants to demolish, they are making money on the deal, city shares in that appreciation and they wanted to find way to expand their program. They are going from 7 to 16 units. This is the same as they tried to do on Vilas Ave. He said they have $70,000 for rehab of the properties including some energy efficiency.

Bill Clingan also notes that the city has $400,000 in these properties and they were getting foreclosed on and if this didn't happen that money would have to be paid back to the federal government. So, this is a good deal for the city.

Rhodes-Conway asks about energy efficiency and if a revolving loan fund to make energy efficiency improvements would help.

Schooler says that it might, but that the energy savings are really needed for the programs and if there were additional debt service that would make it difficult.

Clingan explains some properties need alot of rehab.

Schooler says that there were some energy efficiencies put into the building last time, that Project Home helped with some furnaces. Schooler reiterates that energy savings really need to go to the programs.

MOVIN' OUT
#9 - Movin' Out funding. No comment, passes unanimously.

LAW ENFORCEMENT MONEY
- How Dane County will spend nearly $1M in law enforcement stimulus funds. (Do you remember seeing a public hearing on this? I don't.)
#10 - Rhodes-Conway asks about Drug Court, how is it working, how funded, how can we expand.

Police staff explain that Drug Courts were funded by Weed and Seed money, now this money and they are working with Community Services staff to figure out how to fund them. They say that this is one year money, essentially.

Rhodes-Conway expresses concern about on-going funding in the future and the expectation that the taxpayers continue to fund programs originally funded by grants.

Police staff say that they have told staff that this is one-time money and they are aware.

Claussius asks about traffic enforcement and if the stimulus money could be used for that? Staff says that JAG money is for one-time costs, likely items, not staff. She says they try to get traffic grants from the state to fund those activities

Verveer asks about DAIS money for Domestic Abuse and what that money will go for.

Police staff says they are expanding hours of existing staff.

Verveer asks about the Grant Assistance program.

Verveer compliments Terri Genin on her work over the years and say she deserves the additional help.

Passes unanimously.

METRO CAPITAL MONEY
11 & 12 - Capital Grant for busses. Passes unanimously without comment.

MONONA TERRACE ROOFTOP CAFE
#13 - Monona Terrace Rooftop Kiosk Project - increase $100,000 in Capital Budget.

Rhodes-Conway says first heard about it, please explain.

McMasters explains this is a permanent rooftop cafe. Open and operating at the moment. Had two donations - one from catering company, Monona Terrace Community Programs Inc, donated money - but after Capital Budget was approved. The project is already done.

Rhodes-Conway asks/goes back and forth with staff, if the project is complete, money donated to cover costs. Costs did exceed what was in the budget, so fundraised more money. The over run is covered by donations.

Clausius asks when it is open. Grand opening coming up in a week, hours are Tues - Sat 11 am - 8 pm. Say that so far so good with limited advertising.

VETERAN'S PARK
#14 Plaza and Purgola for Veteran's Park - more dumb jokes . . . passes unanimously.

FIREWORKS
- Agreement for Elver Park fireworks.
#15 - Verveer asks how much money saved by moving from July 3rd to the 4th - someone off camera talking - was $50,000 now $18,500.

Bruer tries to make more jokes, they fall flat.

FIBER OPTICS FOR BOARD OF REGENTS
#16 - Board of Regents fiber options.

Rhodes-Conway asks if we maintain, and staff say city is getting $40,000 of work on Park St. and Rimrock.

Bruer with another joke that falls flat.

STORMWATER UTILITY BUDGET
#17 - Substitute Stormwater Utility Operating Budget - more jokes . . . much off camera so hard to hear.

REPORTS ON FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE CITY
- How'd the city do financially in 2008? $3.2M saved - remember those amendments I tried to make for where we underspend? Well, we're pretty good at it, so all the handwringing we do is often for naught.

#18 - 2008 preliminary operating budget results. Still working on audited statements. They got it by email mid-May. Report in packet. Says numbers for budget are the amended budget.

Revenue - more in PILOT from Water Utility, State Highway aids was half million more than expected. Licenses and permits, permits under by $1.4M. Charges for services, Ambulance fees were up by $500,000 due to increased collection efforts. Investment income will be talked about more in a moment, $2M below what was budgeted. From $6M to $4M, due to interest rates allowed in the market. More revenue in TIF district, some of the money budgeted wasn't spent, so our return was $2M more than anticipated in the budget. So, under by $139,000 in the end because of offsets by PILOT, State Highway aids, ambulance fees and TIF.

Expenses - All departments within their budgets except City Attorney and Human Resources. Year end resolution we took money from their benefits, they had taken money and it was the fault of the estimates, so it was no fault of their own. Streets was the third department over. Kept snowing through end of December, didn't predict how much more it would cost. More jokes off camera. No blame to department head . . . more jokes. Says miscellaneous category of unallocated employee benefits. Significant under run and in the end, we had $3.24 under budget.

Nothing pointed out on balance sheet.

Brasser talks about the charts. Historical variance from originally adopted budget. Says we should ask how good the original budget is. It shows that historically we have had positive variances with a few exceptions. Its usually 1 - 4%, some over 5%. Generally speaking it is due to the weather. So in 2008 it was 1% or $3.1M which goes into the fund balance that can be applied to next year's budget. Fund balance remains stable from one year to the next. Coming out of a year like last year, we can feel very fortunate with the snow and the economy.

Finaly chart is general fund balance as % of operating budget. Says unreserved, undesignated (amount available for emergencies). Target is 15%, we're at 13.1%, so we're slightly below the target but in good shape since we were predicting to be at 12%.

There will be a big report coming out soon.

Bruer asks something, can't hear him. I think he's asking to get the info to the rest of the council members. Bruer asks about self-insurance funds. Brasser says two fund, general insurance and worker's comp. Says the first is improving, the second we often have to add money at the end of the year. Made progress, but still a deficit and we would like to shore that up if additional general fund balance.

Bruer asks about Room Tax - Brasser says didn't bring details. Each quarter we have a report. Says 1st quarter down 12.7% for first quarter, first time in years he's seen that. We saw something similar after 911, but that was a one time drop in travel. Room Tax has a fund balance, if the room tax stays at this lower level into the future, that would be a problem, but we need another quarter of data. So offers to come back with a report.

Bruer asks about Building Permits, says drifting into next item so they move on . . .

- And how bad is 2009? (Hint, $3M bad. Less in revenues and some over expenditures - take a peek to see where.)

Brasser says don't have all the data, but this is where they try to id potential problems. Building permits are down, based on collections of first few months, could be short by $700,000 no real pattern here so hard to project. Fines and forfeitures seem to be up, increase of $300,000 expected. Investment income went from $6 to $4M and we budgeted $4.75M and based on first quarter, it could be more like $2M. So, $2.75M drop. Drop in interest rates is the issue again. Treasurer will talk about more in a moment. More jokes by Clear . . . State recycling aid is $111,000 less than budgeted. Closing of TIF districts last year had another $508,000.

On expense side, no police overtime additions needed, Clerks office has savings in elections costs $95,000, City Channel peg fees are not coming in at the level we were hoping. Not sure why, but that market is changing. Cable revenues are falling. Predicting they could be over budget (expenses) by about $30,000 (normally wouldn't report that small number, but there is an underlying structural problem).

Clear asks when peg fees go away. Mayor says 2011.

Streets division, not snow, but sale of recyclable materials collected. With downturn in the economy, we got less money for the sale of recyclable materials. $1.25M loss for the city. Also, new state budget increased tipping fees. There is $115,000 more at the moment. Might be further update on that. Community Services, daycare assistance, if they project the commitments to date, they are over by $200,000. Director and staff are reviewing and trying to rectify. Contingent reserve. $1.2M and some has been spent and have $942,000 left to pay for these shortfalls.

Points to spreadsheet, net $3.3M, interest income on revenue and loss in recycling payments are the two major driving factors.

He notes a few other fund areas. Room tax fund, 1st quarter well below what was anticipated. Could also impact the general fund. Golf enterprise fund has been experiencing loss for the last couple years and expecting another loss this year. Parks staff working on it, but year to date we need to track this. Used to make money, market has changed. More jokes by mayor, rounds are up, rain is the big wild card says the Mayor. Charging sales tax now, used to eat it. Clear pointing out the obvious, more jokes. Parks took out positions and changed them to hourly positions. [Ugh, a big trend in that department]

Mayor thanks people, says that 2010 budget starts out $3M in hole, but state news is bad by $1M and worse news on tipping fees. So, its a tough picture for 2010. [FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!!]

Clear asks about the $6M swing, $3M positive in 2008 and $3M hole in 2009. Dean says yes, but only if this is the final result, but in 2008 almost every budget under by a bit and we can probably look at the historical chart to show that we have had a positive variance and so we can still expect to find those savings and Clear notes that we also have the hiring freeze. Brasser says its not the expense side that is the worry, its the expense side. Clear points out the revenue is largely out of our control. More jokes by Clear . . .

#20 Treasurer's quarterly briefing on investments. Hands out updates.

Already heard the general themes. We can't control some of these items. Mayor and others are talking as Gawenda is trying to explain and its very distracting. He says he has a few points. Level of return that we get and the rates we earn are volatile. in 7 years he was county treasurer, sometimes rejoiced, sometimes shortfall. He says our benchmark is 90 day treasury bills according to policy, but more practical benchmark is state local government investment pool. Smaller communities use that, so as a practical matter, we should do better. He has a chart that shows city v state. For the last couple years we have done better. Last half of 05 and 06 we lagged the state investment pool. Currently earning twice that amount. When look at monthly comparison, including the school district investments (which we also invest), says its the same rollercoaster, as months go on, reserves drop, so money we earn drops. Explains cash flow of taxes in first of the year and in the bump in August with second payments. Again compares to state investment pool, we're 1% higher for May. We're getting 3 times more. Trying to show the glass is half full. Thinks we might see higher rates at end of the year, but that won't be when we have the cash. 3 months ago he had a 24 page report, now has 6 charts. Talks about 3 buckets of money - cash equivalence (money spending soon, keep it liquid) so lowest return, certificates of deposit we can earn more but not as liquid. Highest return on last second. [His phone keeps going off]. Return on each of the buckets has dropped. Final page, he explains he has done two things to improve returns. May shows cash equivalents lower, cuz trying to push more money into cd's and bonds to get more return. Good as long as keep enough money in cash reserves. Says seen rates gradually increase, report to comptroller looks at average daily balance. Earning more at the end of May so seeing improvement. Market is seeing potential for economic recovery. 2nd derivative recovery, things are still getting bad, but at a slower rate. Recession may end 2nd half of the year.

Mayor asks about recession and unemployment rates. Says the unemployment rates in WI will start to see pick up in 3rd quarter 2010. Says people hiring have to be convinced things are getting better before they start hiring. So, that will lag a bit before there is a confidence to hire people.

Clear asks how county compares to city. Says that talks to county frequently, we are outperforming them. We have more dollars to work with and county treasurer is newer and more cautious in moving money.

#21 - The annual scareing of the alders, with the briefing on how bad the state budget is. No materials available.

Memo not in the packets [The Mayor's office is the rock star in this department!]. Says bottom line impact is less $900,000 but early in process, both houses and governor vetoes may still impact. Levy limit largely did not change. Levy growth 3- 8%, gravitating around 6%. Payments for municipal services, police fire and garbage for state facilities, 1% cut in the program, about $90,000. Administration will stay at DOA in part due to our. Expenditure restraint program will be adjusted for loss in payments for municipal services. We get 80 cents for every $1 of expense. That short fall will be exempt from the calculations this year. Share revenue, governor recommended 1% and it became 3.5%. We were going to lose $325,000, but we can expect 1.1M and there were changes to the formula, so that is the best guess. RTA language remained in tact, change in board membership and opt out for DeForest possible. Transit aids, 2 -3% increase. Highway aids 1% cut turned into 2- 3% increase. Computer aids the same. Tipping fees is bad news. $5.90 to $13.00 per ton. So increase of $160,000 this year and $400,000 next year. Mayor clarifies that the $400,000 is over 2008.

- Update on stimulus money. You have the info, updated at every meeting. Some new JAG money $110,000. Water utility projects not funded. But they would have been loans, not grants. We are a solar city and we might be able to get some money there. So chances are good there. Early July groundbreaking for first stimulus money streets project. Mayor will blog further updates today on trip to Washington.

Clear asks about local share of projects that are new expenses due to the stimulus money. Brasser sees that you might see more next year, beyond the planning money for upcoming projects.

Meeting adjourned.
Read more!

The Friday Snarkarama

I have about 30 blog topics in my queue that I haven't gotten to, I might not have snarky comments about all of them, but somehow, by Friday, some people just inspire me.

ARTICLE ON THE MAYOR
Yawn. Can you imagine what the article might have said if Kristin could have gotten people to speak "ON THE RECORD", that would have been much, much more interesting. Here's a bit of that truth posted to a listserve:

. . . there was nothing about the most recent Property Tax issue. I saw the brief letter he sent out thanking everyone for their work on this issue especially Mario, which is surprising because there was nothing about how his office totally supported what had caused this and what we had been meeting with him for a year trying to get his staff to stop pursuing the tax exemption. Some kind of leadership there and no vision at all of what this policy would create. Late and only supportive when there was political pressure and even then he seemed upset that we were questioning his commitment.

PARKING RATES GOING UP
Rate went up, kinda. Over the next 6 weeks. I usually just keep plugging money in til I get the number of minutes I need, but those who need to know how much they are paying per hour might want to read the meters.

HOUSING DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
Hmmm . . . I find out that when they say they will meet in August for the first time, that what they really mean is the last possible date in August, August 31st. After my blog post, however, there was a scramble to try to get them to meet in June. I wonder if they will be successful. I just love these committees that the council approves and the mayor stalls in appointing and then don't meet. Why bother setting report deadlines if they don't even meet until after the report is due. It says volumes about the Mayor's priorities.

TALK ABOUT PRIORITIES
1. Apparently, the Mayor doesn't care about historic preservation, even tho he says he's a strong supporter. Anyone, EVER, seen any evidence of that? Ever? Worse yet, what about the impact that not filling positions has on staff.

2. Too bad the Council can't weigh in on these priorities - just get the information if they request it. (How about making it truly available and emailing it to them when the statements are written and then putting it on the website?)

3. Most importantly, I've talked to a few staff who are suffering from the lack of support in their units. There are some staff who are working very hard, are very stressed and there doesn't appear to be relief in sight. I didn't hear the Mayor mention the impact on staff in his blog, or that this was part of the decision making process. It makes me really sad to see how hard some of our staff work without recognition and then get insult on top of injury by the Mayor not at least acknowledging it is tough on them. Next time you see some of the hard working staff, not the ones with the high ranking names and titles, but the people who do the work, be sure to thank them!! Our staff is one of the City's greatest assets and it is not being appropriately supported or appreciated, IMHO.

CRIME IS DOWN
For the second year in a row. Go figure. It seems only FEAR is up.

LOBBYIST SPECIAL INVITE

There will be a briefing by city staff on the Zoning Code Rewrite on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 201, CCB (before the Council meeting that evening).

Rick Roll from the Planning, Community & Economic Department will be briefing alders.

Carol Schaeffer and Brian Munson will also be present to provide their perspectives/observations on the Zoning Code Rewrite.

An agenda will be sent out later this week.

Hmmm . . . why just Carole and Brian? Hmmm . . . .

DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
Mike Verveer. I hate it when it is one of your own! Emily Mills is thoughtful as usual. However, its a free speech, right to assemble, right to use public spaces etc etc etc issue. Street musicians should not be charged! Bad Mike.

WHO KNOWS?
Alder Rhodes-Conway shared and email from someone trying to get some information from the city. This is just embarrassing.

I tried to find out what percentage of City employees live in Madison. The Mayors office didn't know. The city human resources office didn't know. The comptrollers office offered to run some kind of search. The State Journal didn't know but said that they would contact the comptroller and let me know the results. It seems like a valuable indicator of some sort.

For those of you wondering the answer. 61%

THAT'S ALL?
$10,000? My guess is that the city is very, very lucky. I always wondered what was in that envelope that Baumann handed Cieslewicz when she left office - from the looks on the faces of the folks in the room, it was pretty grim. My guess is that, from the rumors I have heard, it should have been more women complaining and more money shelled out!

ITS ABOUT FREAKING TIME!
Jason Joyce from the Isthmus has been a staunch defender of his whiner neighbors and the hiring of 30 cops based on their "whites only" meeting they had. But, he finally caved, and is seeing that maybe, just maybe, there's more to the issue and perhaps some are over-reacting. Now, if we could just get him to support an inclusive neighborhood discussion of the issues going on (instead of a press opportunity) and a discussion about what the solutions, beyond policing, might be! I call it progress, but there's a long way to go in resolving issues that we're sure to keep hearing about as the police look for new "tools". Perhaps, the tools shouldn't come from the police department?

That's it folks, the blogging queue is still quite long . . . but the day is too nice to keep sitting at the computer on a day off!
Read more!

Operating Budget - The Gory Details (A Start)

Well, I'm typing this up 4 days later, so its gotten a little fuzzy, but here's what I remember/have notes on.

The evening started off . . . rocky. Since the first amendment was mine, I took the liberty to take a few items out of order. I think this was the order I did them in.

AMENDMENT 33 - PARKING UTILITY MULTI-SPACE METERS
I first placed amendment 33 on file. It was the companion to a capital budget item that was also placed on file. I didn't want to keep staff there all night, for nothing.

Agency/Service: Parking Utility
Page(s): 128, Supplement pages 116, 147
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel

Remove funding for multi-space metering until cheaper rates for credit card charges have been achieved.

Capital Assets - Revenue Equipment $ ( 70,000)
Credit Card Fees ( 50,000)
Telephone Cellular Expense ( 14,000)
Maintenance Contracts ( 26,000)
Electricity ( 3,000)
Reserves Generated 163,000
Total $ - Levy Impact: $ -

AMENDMENT 15 - FIRE STATION 12
True to my word, I placed this on file, and we voted unanimously. I simply wanted the fire chief to explain why we needed this fire station. I understand that other alders were convinced I was up to something and wasn't to be trusted. But that simply wasn't the case, I wanted the public to hear why the WSJ was wrong - and it had nothing to do with thinking that the periphery development was bad - as Alder Skidmore seemed to want to believe. Apparently, I really ruined his speech - as well as, the chief's. The next time I tell the papers I am doing something and why, you can trust that I will follow through as I said.

Agency/Service: Fire / Fire Prevention
Page(s): 34
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel

Delete funding for Station No. 12. This includes 9 firefighters, 5 Lieutenants and 4 Apparatus Engineers to staff the station, as well as purchased services and supplies.

Permanent Salaries $ ( 872,921)
Fringe Benefits ( 375,356)
Purchased Services ( 50,084)
Supplies ( 16,525)
Total $ (1,314,886) Levy Impact: $ (1,314,886)

Oh, the reasons to do this were poor response times in that area, the people were already hired and would have to be laid off, they just had the ground breaking and the station was being built, the fire engines were already ordered and on the way, the equipment was here, etc. etc. etc. i.e. too late! Did I mention it was unanimous? The WSJ editorial was w-a-y off base here.

AMENDMENT 39 - PUTTING THE CDA REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER IN THE CDA BUDGET
I thought the conspiracy theories on the Fire Station were bizarre - it gets worse, no thanks to the mayor. Even though I had talked to the City Attorney 4 times in 3 days, about issues he wanted to bring up about conflicts of interests in other he "was uncertain" what was intended. Apparently he couldn't ask in email or on the phone when I talked to him. Instead, the Mayor's office felt it necessary to torture staff by telling them that they would:

a) have to reapply for their job
b) no longer be city employees; and
c) no longer be eligible for city benefits.

I have no clue where this was all coming from for sure, but it was just plain cruel. We have all kinds of city employees working for the CDA Housing Operations unit. This was intended to do the same thing. But, knowing that they were being so mean to the staff, I moved this up on the agenda to put the poor staff out of their misery.

Agency/Service: Economic Development Division
CDA Redevelopment
Page(s): 143, 151
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Bruer

Transfer the CDA Redevelopment Manager and Community Development Program Manager positions and corresponding funding from the Economic Development Division budget to the CDA Redevelopment budget.

Permanent Salaries (EDD) $ ( 130,985)
Fringe Benefits (EDD) ( 49,512)
Permanent Salaries (CDAR) 130,985
Fringe Benefits (CDAR) 49,512
Total $ - Levy Impact: $ -

Seriously, this was intended to have the CDA Redevelopment Manager and the CDA Secretary actually work for the CDA, just like the Housing Operations Unit employees. It just made sense. But, Alder Bruer moved to place on file, and defended my good intentions. However, it was placed on file on a voice vote.

Having dispensed with those items, we went back to number 1. I moved adoption of amendment 1 & 6 as they were related to each other.

AMENDMENT 1 & 6 - GRANTS FOR PROPERTY TAXES FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROVIDERS

Amendment 1 - Agency/Service: Assessed Value
General Fund Revenues / Other Local Taxes / Prior Year Taxes
Page(s): 4, 13
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel

Increase assessed value by $514,000 to reflect a recent circuit court decision that rescinded the partial property tax exemption of one property located at 1910 Post Road, owned by WHPC-MMM, LLC, and recognize the related payment of $20,225 from this property owner for the 2006 and 2007 tax rolls when this property was omitted.

The addition of this assessed value to the 2008 tax roll will reduce the mill rate applied to all other property within the City, resulting in the redistribution of approximately $3,600 of City taxes from other properties to this newly added parcel and a $.03 reduction in taxes on the average home.

Prior Year Taxes (Increase) $ ( 20,225)
Total $ (20,225) Levy Impact: $ (20,225)

Amendment 6 - Agency/Service: Miscellaneous Appropriations / Other Direct Appropriations / Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Page(s): 10, 19
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel

Provide funding to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund equal to $20,225 of prior year taxes plus the estimated $3,600 of current year City taxes that are anticipated to be collected from WHPC-MMM, LLC as a result of the recent court decision removing the partial tax exemption which had been in place for their property located at 1910 Post Road.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund - Sources:
Transfer from General Fund $ 23,825
Increased AHTF Balance $ 23,825
Miscellaneous Appropriations:
Affordable Housing Trust Fund $ 23,825
Total $ 23,825 Levy Impact: $ 23,825

These amendments take the taxes that will be collected as a result of a state decision and a court case and puts those funds into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and then we will be amending the affordable housing trust fund to allow those funds to be spent for grants for property taxes for low-income housing. Until, hopefully, the state corrects this problem. To my amazement, this passed unanimously on a voice vote. Apparently the Mayor got the word out that this was a good solution to the problems he couldn't figure out how to solve.

AMENDMENT 2 - DISSOLVING THE CAPITAL REVOLVING FUND


I'll try to get this done soon . . . I should have some time Monday and Wednesday evening to work on it.


x Read more!

Operating Budget - The Short Version

I haven't even finished the Capital Budget from yesterday . . . got caught up in a meeting and phone calls and hundreds of emails (many of which I still haven't read) . . . but, here's the short version, before I go to bed, so I can sleep in tomorrow morning and not have to answer a thousand questions from inquiring minds . . . .

WHAT PASSED
- Solution to property tax exemption problems for low-income housing (Amendment 1 & 6)
- Sick leave for hourly employees. (Amendment 7)
- Capping the increase in the amount of money we give Greater Madison Convention and Visitor's Bureau at an additional $283,706. (Amendment 10)
- Lighting project for downtown (Amendment 14)
- Crossing Guard at Redan and Red Tail (Amendment 17)
- Reducing funding for Contract Compliance in Dept of Civil Rights (Amendment 21)
- Recycling in city parks (Amendment 25)
- Keeping 4 streets workers (Amendment 29)
- Bike related programs (Amendment 31)
- Pavement markings (Amendment 32)
- One homeless outreach worker $40,000 (Amendment 40)
- Eviction prevention funds $50,000 (Amendment 41)
- Healthy Neighborhood Liaison (Amendment 45)

WHAT FAILED
- Destroying the Capital Revolving Fund. (Amendment 2)
- $433,000 of cuts (Amendments 4, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 34, 36 See the WSJ for more info. Yes, the WSJ, I'm tired! :)
- Removing language about WYOU funding in 2010 and 2011. (Amendment 8)
- Removing the language as a result of the illegal meeting BOE members help (Amendment 9)
- Eliminating Sister Cities Funding (Amendment 11)
- Amendment to follow our rules about IZ funding for staff (Amendment 12)
- Funding to Keep an IZ home affordable (Amendment 13)
- Bathrooms in City Parks (Amendment 26)
- Advertising and education for large item collection, recycling and waste reduction and the increase in fees for large item collection. (Amendment 27)
- Planner 3/Office of Neighborhood support (Amendment 35)
- Keeping the current process for Office of Community Services Agencies (Amendment 42)
- Cost of inflation increases for Office of Community Services Agencies (Amendment 43)
- Full funding for community needs for community services $391,270. This was amended to just fund Child Care ($75,426) and Youth Services (126,040) (Amendment 44)

WHAT SORT OF IS IN/OUT/NOT SURE WHERE TO PUT IT
- Sister Cities still funded by Room Tax at $5,000 (Amendment 3)
- We cut two amendments on Public Health/Humane Society because the County Board didn't pass matching funding. (Amendments 19 & 20)
- There will be an increase in bus fares (Amendment 30)
- Loss of funding for Clean Air Action Days (Amendment 30)
- CDA Redevelopment Employees in their own department, not in Economic Development Unit failed/placed on file (Amendment 39)

WHAT WAS PULLED WITHOUT A VOTE/"Place on File"
- Increase in funding to Emerging Neighborhoods Funding (Amendment 5)
- Funding for Firestation 12 (Amendment 15)
- Street workers for provide garbage pick up in Town of Blooming Grove (Amendment 28)
- Delaying multi-space metering (Amendment 33)
- 2008 level funding for Neighborhood Grants (Amendment 37)
- Landlord and commercial property registration (Amendment 38)

Operating budget amendment here.

Final vote - Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Webber and Konkel vote no, because of bus fares. Everyone else voted for the budget.

That's it. Time for a nap. Much more to follow . . . later. Read more!

Capital Budget 2009 - Final

Ok - here's my update. When I'm done, if I have time, I will post my notes on the great (as usual) public testimony. I'll keep updating this until I am done later this morning and will note it is final when I'm done.

We couldn't start the meeting at 5:30 because we didn't have quorum. We had to wait for a combination of Skidmore, Compton, Sanborn, Webber, Verveer, Kerr, Cnare, Gruber or Pham-Remmele to show up. Within 10 minutes, we achieved quorum and were able to start with the public testimony. The testimony took three hours, and I will do a summary of that testimony, er, soon. Meanwhile, here's how the actual amendments and voting went down, blow by blow to the best of my ability. Check back for updates, while I update this throughout the morning. (i.e. woke up late and I'm working on it!)

AMENDMENT ONE - AUTO-CHALKING UNITS

Agency/Project: Police / Project #11 - Vehicle Borne Photo Enforcement
Page(s): 20
Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, Verveer

Provide funding in 2009 for two "auto-chalking" monitoring units for use by Parking Enforcement Officers to enforce two-hour and other parking ordinances.
(Note: Beginning in 2010, the Police Department Operating Budget will need to include $28,000 per year for maintenance of these units.)

General Obligation Debt $ 1 47,500
Other Funding 0
Total $ 147,500 Levy Impact: $ 19,102

Basically, this equipment would be able to take photos of cars for parking enforcement of laws such as 2 hour parking. Apparently they would make the parking enforcement officers much more efficient, reduce worker's compensation claims and would pay for themselves in less than two years. Seems like, as Alder Webber said, a "no-brainer", right? Ha!

Concerns were raised by Alders Palm, Clear, Compton and others. Staff answered the questions about all of the benefits to the city of having this equipment. Concerns about implementing something they hadn't planned for, the fact that it might not be used in certain alders' districts . . . etc. One by one, staff shot down each of their concerns. Yes, they work at night and in inclement weather. They could mail the parking tickets or put them on the cars. They are used in many others cities and we are essentially behind the times. They will work to find scofflaws and stolen vehicles and even with amber alerts. The machines last for about 10 years. They might allow us to remove meters in business districts and encourage customer parking. There was lots of rhetoric of "I support this, but not at this time" and "I can't vote for this if it doesn't benefit my district."

By the tone of this first amendment, it seemed as tho this was about to be a very, very long budget. Especially if they were only going to look at how things impacted their own districts. So I said as much to the council. We voted, there were several "no's" and I called roll call. Of course, there was resistance. Alder Cnare suggested that people just raise their hands instead of a roll call, so that's what we did. The back row on the left side of the council all voted "no" (Palm, Compton, Clausius, Schumacher, Clear and Pham-Remmele) which prompted Alder Solomon to name them "murderer's row".

AMENDMENT TWO - HENRY VILAS ZOO

Agency/Project: Miscellaneous / Project #1 - Henry Vilas Zoo Improvements
Page(s): 44
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Ald. Kerr

Add General Obligation Debt funding of $146,000 to the Henry Vilas Zoo Improvements project.

(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes payments from the City of $146,000 for Zoo Capital projects. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget includes no funding for Zoo Capital projects. This amendment will equalize the amounts in the City and County budgets.)

General Obligation Debt $ 1 46,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 146,000 Levy Impact: $ 18,908

This amendment was sponsored by the Mayor because they did not know how much money would be needed when he put out his budget. They now have the detailed list of items that would be done. It was a total of $730,000 of costs and per our agreement with the county, we pay only 20%. This passed on a voice vote, with only Alder Sanborn voting no. (I think - I don't know, as I didn't call roll call.)

NOTE: Alders are often accused of only adding money to the Mayor's budget, but the Mayor often adds money during this process as well - and most people don't usually note that. This year, the Mayor sponsored amendments adding half a million dollars to his own budget - but the Council will be blamed for this.

AMENDMENT THREE - UPGRADES TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #7 - CCB-201 Council Chambers
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Alds. Verveer, Rummel

Reduce General Obligation Debt funding by $50,000 and reduce Other funding (from the County) by $50,000.

(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes $250,000 in payments from the City of Madison for this project. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget as recommended by the Board of Estimates includes City funding of $300,000 for this project. This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 7 will equalize the amounts for CCB Improvements in the City and County budgets.)

General Obligation Debt $ (50,000)
Other Funding (50,000)
Total $ (100,000) Levy Impact: $ (6,475)

There was a substitute Amendment that cut the project by $100,000 to match what the Personnel and Finance committee of the Dane County Board decided. I added an amendment that had the language in amendment 4 "The Common Council shall approve any changes proposed to be made to the chambers, prior to expenditure of funds". That was friendly. The amendment passed 11 (Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Verveer, Webber, Bruer, Clausius, Clear) to 9 (Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skimore, Solomon, Cnare and Compton.)

They then asked us to place amendments 4 & 5 on file.

AMENDMENT FOUR - ADDITIONAL CUTS TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Projects #7 - CCB - 201 Council Chambers
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Solomon

Reduce General Obligation Debt funding by $150,000 and reduce Other funding (from the County) by $150,000. Add the following language to the project narrative: "The Common Council shall approve any changes proposed to be made to the chambers prior to expenditure of any funds."

General Obligation Debt $ (150,000)
Other Funding (150,000)
Total $ (300,000) Levy Impact: $ (19,426)

AMENDMENT FIVE - CUTTING EVEN MORE FUNDS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #7 - CCB-201 Council Chambers
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Cnare, Schumacher, Monson, Compton, Pham-Remmele

Reduce General Obligation Debt funding by $250,000 and reduce Other funding (from the County) by $250,000.

General Obligation Debt $ (250,000)
Other Funding (250,000)
Total $ (500,000) Levy Impact: $ (32,376)

I agreed to place amendment 4 on file, because I got my language from my amendment in amendment 3 and I was willing to cut more in Jed's amendment, but he also placed his on file . . . doh!

AMENDMENT SIX - RENEWABLE ENERGY

Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #12 - Renewable Energy
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Compton, Pham-Remmele

Remove funding for the Renewable Energy project.

General Obligation Debt $ (100,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (100,000) Levy Impact: $ (12,950)

Alder Sanborn renewed (heh.) his arguments that he used at Board of Estimates that these photovoltaic panels are not good technology, expensive for energy they produce and that they need to be more efficient before we spend more money on it. He argued the city did not need to be a leader, that people will do this on their own if it is a wise decision. This was another voice vote. I only heard Jed Sanborn and Judy Compton voting no, but who knows?

AMENDMENT SEVEN - MORE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS PER CONTRACT

Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #13 - City-County Building Improvements
Page(s): 50
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Alds. Verveer, Rummel

Add $342,900 of General Obligation Debt funding to the Facilities Management Capital Budget.

(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes $492,900 in payments from the City of Madison for this project. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget as recommended by the Board of Estimates includes City funding of $150,000 for this project. This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 3 will equalize the amounts for CCB Improvements in the City and County budgets.)

General Obligation Debt $ 3 42,900
Other Funding 0
Total $ 342,900 Levy Impact: $ 44,407

Note, the Mayor is adding more money to the "Council's" budget. Essentially, we pay 39.4% of capital and operating costs for the City-County building based on our agreement with the county. The mayor just wanted us to vote - but I asked they they tell us why we were spending this money. It boiled down to roof, hvac, elevators, etc. The amendment passed on a voice vote, with Jed (poor Jed, I can hear how he votes) voting no, and who knows what everyone else did.

AMENDMENT EIGHT - NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (Traffic Calming)

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #8 Neighborhood Traffic Management
Page(s): 62
Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, Konkel

Retore funding for Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.

General Obligation Debt $ 5 0,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 50,000 Levy Impact: $ 6,475

This item was $250,000 in 2008 and they reduced it to $50,000 in 2009. This amendment would have added just 1/5 of the money back. The staff have never really liked this money - we have had to increase it against their will on more than one occassion and it seems like they have used the "the worst budget year in the history of the universe for the fifth year in a row" as a reason to gut the program. Oh, they promise to get back at it next year . . . meanwhile, as Alder Rhodes-Conway pointed out, there are many neighborhoods who are requesting this funding. The amendment failed 8 (Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Cnare) to 12 (Gruber, Judge, Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton).

AMENDMENT NINE - TRAFFIC CALMING FOR MINERAL POINT AND OWEN DRIVE

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #8 Neighborhood Traffic Management
Page(s): 62
Sponsor(s): Alds. Gruber, Webber

Reauthorize $145,325 of Federal Transportation Grant funding for the design and construction of the Mineral Point at Owen Drive intersection improvement.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Federal Transportation Grant 145,325
Total $ 145,325 Levy Impact: $ 0

This was a simple reauthorization missed in the budget process and passed unanimously on a voice vote.

AMENDMENT TEN - PEDESTRIAN IMPROVMENTS

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #9 Pedestrian Impr on Major Streets
Page(s): 63
Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, Konkel

Restore funding for Pedestrian Improvements on Major Streets.

General Obligation Debt $ 5 0,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 50,000 Levy Impact: $ 6,475

These arguments were similar to amendment 8. This funding was $155,000 in 2008 and it was reduced to $50,000 and this amendment would have restored another 1/3 of the funding. Larry Nelson testified that these were the improvements that "made it safe to cross the street". Sounds like a safety issue here people! But, it failed. 10 (Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Cnare) to 10 (Monson, Plam, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton) And the mayor broke the tie against the amendment. What a surprise! :)

AMENDMENTS 11, 12 & 13 - COUNTY HIGHWAY M

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #17 CTM - CTH PD Area
Page(s): 64
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Webber

Delay the project for one year.

General Obligation Debt $ (137,000)
Other Funding (133,000)
Total $ (270,000) Levy Impact: $ (17,742)

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Projects #18 CTH M - Midtown Road Area
Engineering - Major Streets / Projects #19 CTH M - Valley View Road
Engineering - Major Streets / Projects #20 CTH M - Watts Road Area
Page(s): 64 and 65
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Webber

Delay all three projects by one year.

General Obligation Debt $ (353,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (353,000) Levy Impact: $ (45,715)

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #21 CTH M - CTH S
Page(s): 65
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Webber

Delay the project by one year.

General Obligation Debt $ (400,000)
Other Funding (2,000,000)
Total $ (2,400,000) Levy Impact: $ (51,802)

Those roads, so many, many roads. A heavy issue after 3 hours of testimony and in the 4th hour of meetings. The issue here, as outlined by Alder Rummel is are we building a sustainable city? Why are we building big arterial roads and not grids. She pointed out the impact of borrowing on debt service. She stressed that we needed to be creating interesting, livable, walkable neighborhoods throughout the city.

Several alders took offense and felt the need to defend their neighborhoods. Larry Nelson did his Larry Nelson thing. He asked us to just stop the projects instead of delaying them if that is what we really wanted. He told council members if we didn't spend the federal money, other communities might swoop in and take it away. And then . . . he actually made the argument that we needed to build roads to support the workers and the economy and pointed out, a little bit subtly, that we got cheaper rates when more people bid because of the slow down in work. And my favorite line, after about 10 minutes of talking was that "neighborhood plans are promises" of what will get done. HA! OK - I'll go with that. I got lots of "promises" in several neighborhood plans that I'd like to see the City work on!!!

I asked a bunch of questions about the TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) - I think this might be the first that some alders even ever heard about it - that led to the amendment in number 14.

There was, of course, a roll call vote. The motion to cut these roads failed 5 (Judge, Konkel Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Webber) to 15 (Gruber, Kerr, Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton).

AMENDMENT 14 - FEMRITE DRIVE PHASE 3

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #24 Femrite Drive Phase 3
Page(s): 65
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Webber

Delay the project by one year.

General Obligation Debt $ (410,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (410,000) Levy Impact: $ (53,097)

Second verse, same as the first. This one didn't have any federal funding, so there was no risk of losing federal funding by delaying this one. Tho, based on the last vote, we could see where this was going, so I made a substitute amendment that said "The TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) shall be presented to the Common Council annually by May 15th, prior to submission to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization)."

Ok - I'm out of my league here. I asked Larry Nelson a bunch of questions, but . . . the outcome was that Larry basically said that we approve neighborhood plans and then the only time we discuss which projects get priority is during the Capital Budget. I know that when I was on Long Range Transportation Planning Committee, Larry did an annual presentation to us that described the projects he wanted to work on, we gave him input, he went away and we never heard again until Capital Budget time. I essentially, wanted that presentation done at the Council - prior to making decisions, so that alders could have input and hear from the public, outside of the Capital Budget process and prior to the decisions being made by others. Compton said she couldn't vote yes on it, so I presume she voted against having more information and input. But again, no roll call, so I don't know. You might want to see the Cap Times for further discussion of this item. Alder Webber had many great comments on this issue.

AMENDMENT 15 - GILMAN ST.

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #27 - Gilman Street
Page(s): 66
Sponsor(s): Alds Verveer, Judge

Change limits from "University Avenue to State Street" to "University Avenue to North Henry Street". There is no change in funding

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0

This was the correction of a "technical error" which passed on a voice vote - unanimously, I think. But who knows.

AMENDMENT 16 - MILWAUKEE ST.

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #37 - Milwaukee Street at I 94
Page(s): 68
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Webber

Delay the project by one year.

General Obligation Debt $ (270,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (270,000) Levy Impact: $ (34,966)

Alder Rummel placed this one on file.

AMENDMENT 17 - SEVERAL DOWNTOWN ROAD PROJECTS

Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #55 - University Ave - Campus to Broom
State Street - Capitol Square / Project #4 - State St.-Side Streets Phase 2
Page(s): 71, 29
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer, Judge

Replace narrative and costs for Project No. 55, as follows:

University Ave / Gorham St - Campus Dr to State St
Limits - University Ave/Gorham St from Campus Drive to State Street and North Broom St from State St to W. Johnson St
Construction Year - 2009
Funding - City of Madison
Description - The existing pavement is in poor condition. This project will replace the existing pavement except for portions of the existing bus / bike lane which have been previously replaced. This project will also upgrade portions of the terraces on Gorham Street between State Street and Broom Street, and Broom Street from State Street to Gorham Street in accordance with the State Street Design Project Plan.

Total Cost $2,560,000
GO $1,970,000
TIF $ 220,000
Assess $ 370,000

Also: Delete TID cash funding of $120,000 from State Street Project #4, as amended by the Board of Estimates. And reduce Year 2010 funding for this project from $800,000 to $600,000. Streets planned for reconstruction in 2010 will be Gorham Street, from State to Henry, and also Henry Street, from Gorham to State. The net result of this amendment is an increase of special assessments by $160,000, an increase in TID cash funding of $100,000, and no increase in General Obligation Debt.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 260,000
Total $ 260,000 Levy Impact: $ 0

Not much discussion on this one beyond describing the above. I think it was a unanimous voice vote - but your guess is as good as mine. :)

AMENDMENT 18 - CENTRAL PARK

Agency/Project: Engineering - Other Projects / Project #15 - Central Park
Page(s): 79
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Pham-Remmele, Monson

Remove funding for Central Park for the Years 2009 through 2011.

General Obligation Debt $ (250,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (250,000) Levy Impact: $ (32,376)

Jed explained to us that "you can't have everything". He thought the park should be funded by private funding. People reminded him that the little bit of money here would be leveraging other federal dollars. It failed on a voice vote - and I didn't even catch if anyone voted no or not. Since you know, there was no roll call. :) (Is that getting obnoxious yet?)

AMENDMENT 19 - STORM SEWERS

Agency/Project: Stormwater Utility / Project #4 - Storm Sewer with Street Projects
Page(s): 83
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Ald. Bruer

Reduce General Obligation reauthorization by $130,400, from $1,271,682 to $1,141,282.
(Note: The $1,271,682 in reauthorization was added by Board of Estimates Amendment #1. The reduction in reauthorization is necessary due to RES-08-00942, which was adopted on October 7, 2008. General Obligation debt associated with the Stormwater Utility is repaid using the Utility's resources, therefore, there is no levy impact.)

General Obligation Debt $ (130,400)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (130,400) Levy Impact: $ 0

Another "technical" amendment that passed unanimously on a voice vote - as far as I could tell.

AMENDMENT 20 - MONEY FOR PARKS NOT COVERED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES (The "Bubbler" Amendment!)

Agency/Project: Parks Division / Project #11 - Development Fee Projects
Page(s): 97
Sponsor(s): Alds. Cnare, Compton, Clausius, Schumacher

Replace Development Fee funding with General Obligation debt for Phases II and III for Door Creek Park, a Drinking Fountain (Bubbler) in North Star Park and tennis courts at Richmond Hill Park. Debt service of approximately $90,000 per year will be repaid through impact fees.

General Obligation Debt $ 7 00,000
Other Funding (700,000)
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0

Who knew, development fees don't cover our actual costs for the parks. Hmmmmm . . . . .
Ok - so there were some accounting games played here because we don't have enough collections from developer fees for parks and we want to do some project now, so we're borrowing money and hoping the developer fees come in later and they will be used to pay the interest on our loan, but not for the actual improvements. So, we will need to charge developers for this in the future. If I understood it correctly. I just wish we could have done something this creative for some of the parks in the 2nd district. Maybe next year . . .

One of the funnier comments when was Judy Compton was trying to speak in support of the amendment, but was urging the council to vote against it - Alder Cnare asked the Mayor to "Turn off the mic!" He started to . . . Judy straightened herself out and I think it passed unanimously.


AMENDMENT 21 - NEW DOWNTOWN PARKING RAMP PLANNING MONEY
This was tabled, I'll come back to it - it contains the most bizarre items of the evening.

AMENDMENT 22 - PARKING EQUIPMENT

Agency/Project: Parking Utility / Project #6 - Parking Revenue Equipment
Page(s): 119
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel

Delay purchase of multi-space meter equipment until there is a solution to high credit card charges.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding (640,000)
Total $ (640,000) Levy Impact: $ 0

After heavy lobbying from staff, I agreed to place this on file.

AMENDMENT 23 - SMALL CAP TIF

Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #10 - TID 32 - Upper State St. Corridor
Page(s): 125
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Sanborn

Amend the CIP to remove $300,000 annually in years 2010 through 2014 for Small Cap TID funding.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0

To me, this is one of the most wasteful, stupid programs we have in the city. I empathize with the need to get more owner-occupants downtown and I empathize with the fact that you can't easily turn these crappy rentals into owner-occupied housing easily and that we are losing our housing stock in the downtown. But this is just NOT the way to address these issues and as long as this program is in place, we won't get to real solutions. I think we can accomplish these goals withough giving someone $60,000 of free money from the city. Nevertheless, it failed on voice vote. Alders Sanborn and I voted no, I don't know if anyone else did. (Yup - no pesky roll call vote - so you'll never really know.)

AMENDMENT 24 - $3M FOR WHAT?

Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #14 - TID 38 - Badger / Ann / Park St.
Page(s): 126
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Bruer

Add the following language to the end of the project narrative: "A plan for the public process will be approved by the Common Council as well."

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0

Currently, we are giving $3M for something yet to be determined. The language in the budget says:

This TID was created in 2008 as part of the revitalization of the South Park Street and Badger Road area. General goals include the elimination of blight and the stimulation of commercial and residential development. $3,000,000 is included in 2009 for acquisition, demolition and relocation costs associated with land assemblage. Prior to the purchase or demolition of additional properties for this project, a business plan consistent with the South Madison Revitalization Strategies Report will be prepared for the block bounded by Park Street, Badger Road, Cypress Way and Hughes Street. This plan will be subject to a public process to gather citizen input and must be submitted for review and approval by the Common Council.

So, $3M for what? I amended the amendment to say:
"A plan for the public process shall include at least two additional well publicized full neighbohood meeting beyond the legally required city meetings and neighborhood association meetings."

Passed unanimously.

AMENDMENT 25 - STOUGHTON ROAD

Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #15 - TID 39 - Stoughton Road
Page(s): 126
Sponsor(s): Alds. Compton, Cnare, Clear, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore

Add $100,000 for professional fees and other expenses related to the implementation of the marketing plan for the Bio-Ag Gateway. Although the marketing plan was prepared in 2008, actual implementation of the plan did not begin until the 4th Quarter. The amendment will allow the City to continue the implementation activities identified within the marketing plan. (Note: Future debt service will be repaid from the TIF district, therefore there is no direct impact on the levy.)

General Obligation Debt $ 1 00,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 100,000 Levy Impact: $ 0

At this point it was 11:45 and President Bruer refused to let us take a break. Therefore, I took my own during this item. I have no idea if it was discussed. I have no idea what the outcome of the vote was, but I presume it passed.

AMENDMENT 26 - CUTTING MUNICIPAL ART FUND

Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project #19 -
Municipal Art Fund
Page(s): 127
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Schumacher, Monson, Pham-Remmele

Remove funding for the Municipal Art Fund.

General Obligation Debt $ (112,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (112,000) Levy Impact: $ (14,505)

It was getting late, and since I didn't type this up right away, things have become fuzzy. Testimony that I recall was Thuy talking about how this was "too sophisticated" for her and how she didn't understand. I think this is when she went into how she didn't get any training to be an alder (like any of us did?). Libby Monson said that this should be funded by private funds. Tim Gruber spoke in support and pointed out that when he and his 2 year old son went to the pool, Martin noticed the gates, and knew that they were special. Rhodes-Conway graced us with a poem:

As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for -- but we fight for roses, too!

I'm certain Thuy didn't understand a word of it.

We had another voice vote. I heard Jed vote no, I'm not certain if all the sponsors voted "no" as well - it certainly didn't sound like it.

AMENDMENT 27 - PUBLIC MARKET

Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #24 - Public Market
Page(s): 128
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Konkel; Mayor Cieslewicz

This project will provide funding in the Capital Improvement Program of $1 million in each of 2011 and 2012 for costs associated with the acquisition, construction, renovations, and other related development costs for a Madison Public Market to serve Madison and promote the use of local foods and products as part of the City's economic development strategy. Additionally, provide up to $60,000 of expenditures from the PCED Preliminary Planning project in 2009 to prepare additional detailed site selection, market analysis, design assessment, and community input for an additional 2-3 candidate locations to be identified as a potential site for a Madison Public Market.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0

Alder Rummel talked about why needed this in the budget to send a signal and that it was seeding for the future. Alder Kerr expressed interest in having it be in an existing buidling. Gruber finally supports because they are looking at additional sites. (Wonder how much that will cost them?) Another voice vote, it was unclear who voted no.

AMENDMENT 28 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #32 - Revision of 3-5 Year Strategic Plan
Page(s): 129
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel

Amend the CIP to provide $100,000 of funding in 2013.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0

There was one question by Kerr, about why this was in the capital budget vs the operating budget. The Comptroller explained that major planning activities were put in the capital budget, others are put in the operating budget. This passed on a voice vote.

AMENDMENT 21 - PARKING GARAGE

Agency/Project: Parking Utility / Project #3 - MMB Parking Garage
Page(s): 118
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel, Webber

Remove funding for MMB Parking Garage until a Council decision has been reached on a downtown hotel placement or a study has been approved on the alternatives of a Brayton Garage and replacing Government East.

General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding (1,200,000)
Total $ (1,200,000) Levy Impact: $ 0

This amendment came about because we were given three choices by staff in the budget and the Mayor chose to fund the parking garage behind the municipal building - however, we are no where near making that decision. At the moment, the hotel is on hold and they won't know if the hotel is interested in building on the MMB property. The Mayor insisted that we needed to keep this in the budget to signal support. However, when alders tried asking questions, it quickly became clear that we couldn't possibly know what we might even be signaling support for. Alder Solomon was going to make a motion - he had a very long stream of consciousness conversation with himself - out loud - which led us to table the item. It was unanimously tabled until the end of the meeting and then we came back to it.

When we got back to it - Alder Solomon's brilliant solution was "I got nothing."

Alder Verveer attempted to make the motion that I think Alder Solomon was trying to make . . . if I recall correctly, it would have passed this in the budget and then required them to bring a plan back to us. It was getting late and it was a few nights ago, so I hope I got that right. That motion failed 7 (Gruber, Judge, Sanborn, Compton, Bruer, Solomon and Verveer) to 13 (Kerr, Konkel, Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rummel, Schumacher, Skidmore, Webber, Clausius, Rhodes-Conway, Clear and Cnare)

We then voted on the orignal amendment and it failed with the Mayor breaking the 10-10 tie. Voting for the motion were Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rummel, Rhodes-Conway, Palm, Schumacher. Voting against were Monson, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Skimore, Compton, Solomon, Verveer, Bruer, Clausius and Clear.

If this was in the budget to "signal support" - I don't think it did its job very well. Who knows what the council would support?

FINAL VOTE
It was a voice vote and passed unanimously. I asked to be recorded as voting "no". Alder Rummel says she voted no as well.

Sorry it took me so long to complete this, I took a few days off! Read more!